Wow... Nolio closed the other thread? 

Firebats FTW!

Seriously, yell, past a certain point, it makes no difference how many charges you bring up if the charges are serious enough.  The Oklahoma City bombers were charged with 6 murders.  Pretty much, when you've got solid evidence for a couple penalties that together add up to a life sentence, you don't need to get him another 60 life sentences, unless you buy into reincarnation.

Not me!

This is in politics?

S
T
D

Why the hell do either of you need to prove "X race is better than Y race" in the first place?  Look, can't we just say "okay, all races are helpful in advancing society" and move on?

> {Poo}((BoNaNZa)) wrote:

> > Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> Wow...

Bonanza, if Martin Luther King read what you consider to be a celebration of Black History Month, he would turn over in his grave.

You're reinstating the same damn racism that was fought against by saying that African Americans are better than other races.  That's just as prejudicial as a Caucasian saying that they can do anything better than an African American.

Ok, but also Malcolm x would be happy. Cant please them both, or can u?

1: Are you sure that's the one you want to please?  If Malcolm X's message, in the end, was just racism directed against non-African American races, then his message is worth nothing because there is no hope for a better society.  He provides no hope for groups to live and work together.  At that point, you justify Decimus and every other racist to continue what they're doing, because you are no better than Decimus.

Hehe, it was about 3 years ago.  Two days before Easter, I organized with the moderators and lots of people in various galaxies.  Basically, I had a bunch of planets renamed "egg" by various VIPs.  Then on Saturday, we told everyone that the first person to find the coordinates of all the easter egg planets  in their galaxy got tag points. 

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> "You are seriously arguing that a lack of resources doesn't cause war?  Um... you are just wrong on so many levels."

No.  I'm saying it doesn't have to.

Actually, yes, it does.

Xeno, if you are starving and have absolutely no resources on hand to obtain food, and someone next to you has a shitload of food, yet tells you to go to hell if you offer to trade with them for their food, you only have one option: to load your rifle.

Look, you're no longer even backing up your arguments with justification, so debating here is pretty much pointless unless you are willing to actually explain your arguments, rather than throw out a tiny blurb and expect anyone to give it credence.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> International trade is wasteful, and unnecessary.  Every nation has the potential to produce domestically enough goods to satisfy its people's basic needs.

The notion that without international trade there is war is a fallacy.

1: You're going against every real economist known to man.  Pure and simple.
2: There's no justification behind this.
3: International trade doesn't assume that certain nations can't obtain key resources.  It's called comparative advantage.

Let me use my favorite example.  Assume that Tiger Woods could mow his lawn in 5 minutes.  Or he could have you mow it, and it would take you two hours to mow it for $10.00.  Even if he is better than you at mowing the lawn, he should hire you because in the time you are doing that, he can earn tons more money by making a new advertisement or something.

Just because someone CAN produce their own resources, it doesn't mean they SHOULD.
4: Prove that trade is bad.  Do your own open heart surgery.
5: Certain nations can't obtain those resources.  Farming in the Middle East is retarded.  Drilling for oil in Luxembourg is retarded.  Trying to hire an IT guy in Nigeria is retarded.  Do I seriously need to go on?

As for the trade vs war tradeoff, I'm empirically right on this.

1: World War 2.  The US stopped selling rubber to Japan.  Japan was forced to declare war on the US because it couldn't get its own rubber without obtaining resources.
2: Imperialism in the 16th-18th century.
3: Arguably, the Iraq war.
4: Blood diamonds.
5: Iran-Iraq war.
6: Opium wars.

You are seriously arguing that a lack of resources doesn't cause war?  Um... you are just wrong on so many levels.

Not to mention that you provided nothing to substantiate either of your claims.  You just said it.